Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
CONTEMPORARY USA:
FINDINGS FROM THE COMMUNITY
NEEDS AND SERVICES STUDY
REBECCA L. SANDEFUR
AMERICAN BAR FOUNDATION
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
Accessing Justice in the Contemporary USA: Findings from the Community Needs and Services Study
Table of Contents
2|Page
Accessing Justice in the Contemporary USA: Findings from the Community Needs and Services Study
Executive Summary
A new study of the civil justice experiences of the American public, the Community
Needs and Services Study, finds widespread incidence of events and situations that have civil
legal aspects, raise civil legal issues and are potentially actionable under civil law. Most are
handled outside the context of the formal justice system. These events are common and can
be severe in their impacts. People experiencing these situations typically do not receive
assistance from lawyers or other formal third parties.
In 2013, two-thirds (66%) of a random sample of adults in a middle-sized American city
reported experiencing at least one of 12 different categories of civil justice situations in the
previous 18 months. For the whole sample, the average number of situations was 2.1; for
people who reported situations, the average number reported was 3.3. The most commonly
reported kinds of situations involved bread and butter issues with far-reaching impacts:
problems with employment, money (finances, government benefits, debts), insurance, and
housing. Poor people were more likely to report civil justice situations than were middleincome or high-income people. African Americans and Hispanics were more likely to report
such situations than Whites.
People reported that almost half (47%) of the civil justice situations they experienced
resulted in a significant negative consequence such as feelings of fear, a loss of income or
confidence, damage to physical or mental health, or verbal or physical violence or threats of
violence. Adverse impacts on health were the most common negative consequence, reported
for 27% of situations.
Typically, people handled these situations on their own. For only about a fifth (22%) of
situations did they seek assistance from a third party outside their immediate social network,
such as a lawyer, social worker, police officer, city agency, religious leader or elected official.
When people who did not seek any assistance from third parties outside their social circles
were asked if cost was one barrier to doing so, they reported that concerns about cost were a
factor in 17% of cases. A more important reason that people do not seek assistance with these
situations, in particular assistance from lawyers or courts, is that they do not understand these
situations to be legal.
3|Page
Accessing Justice in the Contemporary USA: Findings from the Community Needs and Services Study
Figure 1. Race, Ethnicity and Poverty Status for the USA, the Midwest,
and Middle City: 2010
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Source: US Census.
4|Page
Accessing Justice in the Contemporary USA: Findings from the Community Needs and Services Study
During the summer and fall of 2013, the CNSS surveyed randomly selected adults living
in a stratified random sample of residential addresses in Middle City. Surveys were conducted
in person, in English, typically at respondents homes. Interviews usually lasted 60- 90 minutes.
Along with demographic information, the survey includes an inventory of civil justice situations
encountered in the 18 months prior to the survey contact. The result is a rich body of
information about the experiences of a broadly representative sample of the adult residents of
a typical middle-sized American city.
People who participated in the survey were asked about a range of situations you may
have experienced, all of which were carefully selected to be situations that have civil legal
aspects, raise civil legal issues, and have consequences shaped by civil law. Thus, people did
not need to be able to assess whether or not the events that they confronted had legal aspects
in order to report them to the survey. Situations were presented in a randomized order to each
respondent, to reduce the effect of questionnaire item ordering on estimates of the prevalence
of different kinds of situations.
For people who reported situations, one of those reported was randomly selected for a
life history that collected details about what actions, if any, people took to respond to civil
justice situations and from where, if anywhere, they sought information or assistance. The life
history questions inquired into actions people considered but decided against, into the results
of their attempts to seek information, advice, and other assistance, and into the costs and
impacts of the problem they experienced. The survey also included measures of peoples
knowledge about their legal rights.
The Community Needs and Services Study shares important similarities with the long
tradition of research that includes the 1994 Comprehensive Legal Needs Study commissioned
by the American Bar Association (see Table 1), but it also differs from the 1994 study in key
respects. In particular, the CNSS sample represents the entire population, rather than only
those of low and moderate income, and it is a sample of individuals, rather than households.
The CNSS also inquired in greater detail about experiences with a wider range of justice
situations.
5|Page
Accessing Justice in the Contemporary USA: Findings from the Community Needs and Services Study
Table 1. Design Characteristics and Selected Findings from Two Studies of Public
Experience with Civil Justice Situations: USA (1992) and Middle City (2013)
Number of situations
queried
Reference period
Unit of analysis
Mode of administration
Framing
Cooperation rateb
Sample size
Population
Average length of
interview
Average number of
situations reported
Median number of
situations reported
Percent reporting
situations within the
reference period
USA
67
Middle City
98a
12 months
Household
Telephone and face-toface (for 303 households
without telephones)
things that were
happening
74%
3087
Low-incomec and
moderate-incomed
households
45 minutes
18 months
Person
Face-to-face
2.1
49%
66%
3087
668
Notes: These initial findings exclude situations involving consumer purchases, health care, and
neighborhood and community issues, which will be presented in future reports.
b
A cooperation rate is a measure of participation by targeted respondents for whom contact was
completed. It represents completed interviews as a proportion of completed interviews, interviews that
were terminated before completion, and final refusals to participate. It does not include attempts for which
no contact was made or attempts which were not completed because the study left the field.
c
The 1994 ABA report defined low income households as those eligible for federally funded civil legal
assistance, or households at 125% of the poverty level or below. This report follows that convention.
d
The 1994 ABA report defined moderate income households as those between 126% of poverty and the
th
80 percentile of the national household income distribution. This report follows that convention.
Sources: Report on the Legal Needs of the Low- and Moderate-Income Public (American Bar
Association, 1994) and authors calculations from the Community Needs and Services Study.
6|Page
Accessing Justice in the Contemporary USA: Findings from the Community Needs and Services Study
7|Page
Accessing Justice in the Contemporary USA: Findings from the Community Needs and Services Study
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
While all groups in the population encounter civil justice situations, some are more
likely to encounter them than others. As Figure 3 demonstrates, poor people were significantly
more likely to report civil justice situations than people in high or middle income households,
and African Americans and Hispanics were more likely to report civil justice situations than
were Whites.
8|Page
Accessing Justice in the Contemporary USA: Findings from the Community Needs and Services Study
Female
Male
High Income
Middle Income
Low income
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Notes: Low income households are those eligible for federally funded civil legal assistance, or households at 125%
th
of the poverty level or below. Middle income households are those between 126% of poverty and the 80
percentile of the national household income distribution. High income households are those with incomes in the
top 20% nationally.
Whites are significantly less likely than non-Whites to report civil justice situations (p <.01).
People in low income households are significantly more likely to report civil justice situations than people living in
high or middle income households (p <.001).
The gender difference is not statistically significant at a conventional level of p<.05 (p=.09).
N=668 respondents.
Source: Authors calculations from the Community Needs and Services Study.
Accessing Justice in the Contemporary USA: Findings from the Community Needs and Services Study
negative impacts on physical or mental health. Almost half (47%) of situations resulted in at
least one of the 6 consequences listed in Figure 4, and about a fifth (21%) of situations resulted
in two or more. People in low income households were most likely to report one or more of
these consequences from their civil justice situations (51% did so), while people in high income
households were least likely to (30% did so).1 These are serious impacts that affect not only
those who experience them but can ripple out to their families, their communities, and society
at large.
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Notes: n=425 reported civil justice situations randomly selected for the collection of situation life histories.
Source: Authors calculations from the Community Needs and Services Study.
10 | P a g e
Accessing Justice in the Contemporary USA: Findings from the Community Needs and Services Study
11 | P a g e
Accessing Justice in the Contemporary USA: Findings from the Community Needs and Services Study
Figure 5. How People Handle Civil Justice Situations: Percent Handled by Each
Means, Middle City, 2013
7%
16%
15%
Do Nothing
Self-help
Help from family and
friends
16%
Help from
advisor/representative
46%
Notes: n=1440 situations reported in 12 different categories. Figure excludes two situations for which
respondents reported that they did not know how they responded.
Source: Authors calculations from the Community Needs and Services Study.
When third parties other than family and friends became involved, these seldom
included lawyers or courts. Situations that were selected for detailed follow up in the life
histories provide rich information about how people handle these kinds of events. In these life
histories, very few situations involved courts or tribunals of any kind: 8% of the total situations
selected for in-depth follow-up. Of the small number of situations with some kind of court
involvement (n=36), people sought advice or other assistance from attorneys in just over two
fifths (42%) of cases. In situations with no court involvement, they sought the assistance of
attorneys in 5% of cases.
Why didnt people reach out further for assistance with in handling civil justice
situations? Interestingly, cost plays a modest role in peoples accounts of why they do not do
more to respond to the situations they face. Among people who had not gone to any kind of
advisor outside of their own social network, the most common reason given was that they did
not see the need (46% of the instances in which no advice was sought): either the problem had
resolved or they expected it to resolve without getting advice, or they simply felt that they did
not need advice. Another important reason for not seeking advice was believing that it would
12 | P a g e
Accessing Justice in the Contemporary USA: Findings from the Community Needs and Services Study
make no difference (offered as a reason 24% of the time). In 9% of instances where people did
not or were not planning to seek advice, they explained that they did not know where to go or
how to do so. Concerns about cost played a role in 17% of cases in which people did not or
were not planning to turn to third parties, including lawyers, for assistance in handling civil
justice situations.
Figure 6. Selected Reasons for Not Going to Any Formal Advisor for Assistance with
a Civil Justice Situation: Middle City, 2013
No need for advice
Too stressful
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Source: Authors calculations from the Community Needs and Services Study.
How Americans handle their civil justice situations is clearly not just about money.
Often, they believe there is no need to seek assistance, or that there is nothing to be done
about their situation. But, Americans do not take most of their justice situations to lawyers or
courts for another very important reason: they do not understand these situations to be legal.
13 | P a g e
Accessing Justice in the Contemporary USA: Findings from the Community Needs and Services Study
Middle City residents characterized 9% of their civil justice situations as legal and 4% as
criminal. Much more commonly, they described situations in ways that suggested that they
felt at least somewhat resigned to them: 56% of situations were described as bad luck/ part of
life or as part of Gods plan. For a substantial minority of situations, people understood
them in ways that could make involving outside third parties seem inappropriate: 21% were
described as either private or as matters properly dealt with within the family or community.
How people think about these events matters for what they do about them. Overall,
people went to lawyers for help or considered doing so with 16% of the situations explored in
the life histories. However, they were significantly more likely to have used or considered using
lawyers for the situations that they believed to be legal (39% of instances) than for those
they did not (14% of instances).2
14 | P a g e
Accessing Justice in the Contemporary USA: Findings from the Community Needs and Services Study
15 | P a g e
Accessing Justice in the Contemporary USA: Findings from the Community Needs and Services Study
Conclusion
In the United States today, civil justice situations are common and widespread. For
many members of the American public, these are troubles that emerge at the intersection of
civil law and everyday adversity,3 involving work, finances, insurance, pensions, wages,
benefits, shelter, and the care of young children and dependent adults, among other core
matters. These problems affect not only the poor or other vulnerable groups, but occur across
the population. Findings from the Community Needs and Services Study reveal that tens of
thousands of people in Middle City are experiencing civil justice situations, and imply that tens
of millions of people around the nation do so.
The consequences of these situations can be severe, and they do not fall equally on all
who experience them. People in low-income households are more likely than others to
experience negative consequences from civil justice situations, including adverse impacts on
health, confidence, and income.
While civil justice situations are frequent in the lives of Americans, turning to the legal
system to handle them is not. The most common type of civil justice experiences are in fact
those that do not involve contact with lawyers or the formal legal system. One predominant
explanation for why more Americans do not turn to lawyers with such situations involves the
cost of legal services. But the findings of the Community Needs and Services Study make clear
that it is not so simple. When facing civil justice situations, people often do not consider law at
all. They frequently do not think of these situations as legal, nor do they think of courts or of
attorneys as always appropriate providers of remedy.
The Community Needs and Services Study brings insights from key stakeholders into
debates about access to civil justice -- the public whose affairs are governed by civil laws,
whose taxes support the civil justice system, and whose votes elect those who make its rules
and set its funding. In our democracy, filling the Justice Gap4 and addressing the Access-toJustice Crisis5 will require a broad conversation. To be fruitful, it must engage with more than
just the costs of services and the lack of funds. It must explore the perspectives of the public.
Rebecca L. Sandefur, The Importance of Doing Nothing: Everyday Problems and Responses of Inaction, in
Transforming Lives: Law and Social Process, edited by Pascoe Pleasence, Alexy Buck and Nigel Balmer.
London:TSO (2007), p.113.
4
Legal Services Corporation, Documenting the Justice Gap in America: The Current Unmet Civil Legal Needs of LowIncome Americans. An Updated Report of the Legal Services Corporation, Washington, DC: Legal Services
Corporation (2009).
5
Imbalanced Scales: Why There is an Access-to-Justice Crisis in a Nation of Too Many Lawyers, Panel
Discussion, Aspen Institute, Washington, DC, January 29, 2014.
16 | P a g e
Accessing Justice in the Contemporary USA: Findings from the Community Needs and Services Study
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (SES-1241288)
through both a project grant and its Research Experience for Undergraduate Program, and by
the American Bar Foundation through a project grant and its Montgomery Summer Research
Diversity Fellowships in Law and Social Science for Undergraduate Students. Pascoe Pleasence
has been a generous advisor from the beginning. Preliminary work on the study benefitted
from the research assistance of Jeremiah Bohr and Merritt Steele. A team of over 40
interviewers, programmers, field supervisors and other staff from the Iowa Social Science
Research Center worked hard to select, contact, recruit and survey respondents. In particular,
the author commends Ashley McDonald for her superb field direction. Preparation of the data
for this report was ably assisted by Margarita Rayzberg and Kaitlyn Williams.
A tremendous debt of gratitude is owed to the ordinary Americans who took the time
to share their experiences and perspectives through participating in the research.
17 | P a g e